Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it any good? Yes.
Did it blow me away? No.
The reason is there isn't anything in it that I haven't seen before. There were no moments in it where I just thought "Wow!".

This review is from someone who has never read the books and only just vaguley remembers the 80's cartoon.

PLOT = It could have been brilliant but wasn't. It reminded me of Saving Private Ryan. 9 heroes walking through a dangerous land and on a perilous mission. But the plot has big problems. The main one is we know exactly what the mission is from the very start of the film. In SPR we knew that the had to find Private Ryan. But who is he? Where is he? Is he still alive? That's what kept that story going but in LOTR there isn't any of that. We know their mission at the start and it doesn't change. So it just seems to move from one set piece to another. They meet bad guys, they escape, they meet more bad guys, they escape. It just becomes repetative.

And we're never really told anything about these guys. What is there motivation for going on this journey? Some of them seem to be there for no reason. I would have loved some scenes where the characters actually sat down and thought about what they are doing and if they should do it. It would have been great to have some scenes where they talk about their homes and the lives they have. I can't remember any of that and I don't think I knew anything more about them by the end than I did at the start. I don't want to start going on about Star Wars because the films shouldn't be compared but even in TPM, which was slated for it's character development, you still know why the characters are doing what they do.
There is just 3 hours of the Fellowship running from bad guys without any real explanation as to why. Plus, when some of them get beat up, they are fine in the next scene. If someone gets cut then you should see them struggling for the rest of the film.
There IS areal sense of danger at the beginning and some of it is quite scary. But by the end it's gone. Mainly because you've just seen 2 hours of them managing to escape over and over again and you end up knowing that these Orcs and RingWraiths might not be that scary afterall.
I don't know whether the book is like this but I got quite bored after a while.

CAST = Some of the cast suprised me by being good. Others I didn't like. Ian McKellan was great. He is that part. Just like Alec Guiness in ANH he just seems to be that character. He's the only one in the film who doesn't seem to be acting. Liv Tyler is terrible. She shouldn't be there. Cate Blanchette seems embarassed and Hugo Weaving just looks weird.
But the one I really didn't like was Elijah Wood. His "little boy lost" look is fine at the start because that's what he is. But he's still the exact same at the end and it's just annoying. You would have thought that the character might have changed a bit by the end of the film but I don't think he did. He just looked and acted the same.
And the cast don't seem to be having any fun. If they are then it's not coming through on screen. Apart from McKellen who is obviously loving it.
Gandalf was the only character I liked. I haven't read the book so I don't know if the actors play the characters well but none of them interested me. I didn't feel sorry for any of them. Even when Gandalf died and they were crying. I didn't care.

CGI = Everyone is going on about the CGI being better than ILM. It isn't. It's just different. Most of the CGI in this is very dark which makes it more real. But is that what you want? I don't. I want CGI to blow me away by making things that would be impossible to create any other way. And they haven't got rid of the CGI "blur" that ILM managed to do in TPM. They do some things better than ILM but other things they didn't get right.

DIRECTION = I think if you're a LOTR fan then you'll be glad Peter Jackson directed it because it is well directed. But he can't direct action! Someone said that to me and I never knew what they meant but I do now. Think TPM. When you saw the Gungans moving into battle you thought "This is going to be amazing". When the droids marched straight at them it was. But as soon as Lucas zoomed in to focus on Jar Jar or some other Gungans you lost all sense of scale. It's the same here. The fight scenes are confusing and so close up that you lose sense of scale and just how many people are in the room. The room could be swarming with battles but you wouldn't know. But other than that he directed it well and seemed to put a lot of effort into it.


I saw this film with 5 massive LOTR fans and two of them loved it. Two like me thought it was good but nothing special and the other one said "It's good but it's not Lord Of The Rings".

I don't know what has got the critics so hyped because like I said, there was nothing in it that I hadn't seen before. Raiders Of The Lost Ark is a far better adventure film. There aren't any other real fantasy films to compare it to. Maybe that's why it being so praised.

If you like the books then you'll probably think it's amazing. But if LOTR is to beat Titanic and become one of the most popular films ever then it will have to appeal to non-fans like me. If I had to mark it out of 10 and give it about a 7.

the thing that comes to my mind when I read your review, and what you think is bad, is that this is just like the book, and that it seems very positive to me.

''some of them seem to be there for no reason''

other than saving the world?


'' There is just 3 hours of the Fellowship running from bad guys without any real explanation as to why.''

the explanatation is, as I positively know is in the film, that they must destroy the ring to save the world.

If someone came to you tommorow and said "look Mah, I have this ring. You have to walk through hell with it so it can be destroyed or the world will be destroyed. And you might not come back". Would you just say "okay" and accept that this is your job? Of course you wouldn't. And that's the feeling I got from the film.

It was like Frodo just decided that he would do it and his freinds decided to come along for the sake of it. Why did they go? To help there freind? If it is then it was unrealistic.

If your freind came to you tommorow and said "I have to deliver this thing to Afghanistan. Fancy coming with me". You'd never go.

I just didn't like the way they seemed to take it in their stride. It diminished the evilness of the bad guys. There was NO motivation for a lot of the Fellowship to go.

This comes from another review but it sums it up - "Ring bad. Must be destroyed. Hey I'll go!" That's the impression I got. And it summed up the plot.

Is this what the book is like? I can't beleive it is. It seemed to me that Peter Jackson was so desperate to get the Fellowship on the road and in danger so he could show off the effects that they skipped a lot of detail. Or is the book like that?

I wanted to know a lot more about the characters and where they come from.

in the book frodo is scared first, gandalf says how important it is, and that he has to do it, he is the 'chosen'. then he goes, sam wants to follow and does, the two other hobbits wants to follow their best friends whatever happens and so they do, the other 5 members are highly qualified and professional persons and are picked to join the saving of the world in the meeting between all the wise and respected people. they are professional 'soldiers' you might say and it's not so strange to have a special elite group involved in dangerous stuff.

That is pretty much what happens and I agree with the part about Strider and the rest of them. But to me it just seemed too rushed and too easy for Frodo and the Hobbits to say "yes I'll save the world".

They should have spent more time developing this. I might have liked the characters better if they had.

The ring can only be carried by Frodo,he is chosen by it, that is why he does it. sam cares extraordinarily much for his 'master'. the others: a bit more strange for them to follow, but as read later in the book, they didn't know how scary and horrible it would be, and they regret joining.

I didn't get that from the film. Apart from the Frodo part.

I'll probably see it again so I might like it better next time when I have a better idea of who everyone is.

Hmm,. Well, I;m not seeing it to tomorrow night, but if the film really did fail to make some of these things clear, it is an error.

In the book: Frodo came because a. he is the Hero, and it is their lot to do dangerous things, and b. because the Elves and Gandalf told him how important it was, and that he was the only one who could do it. That didn't leave him much choice; the respect those people commanded was enormous

Sam comes for roughly the same reason JJ does in TPM, Merry and Pippin are both the adventerous sort and are knackered if their friend is going to have fun and not them- it must be said, they regret their decision to come later.

As for the rest of the Fellowship, they are ALL doing it because this mission is essential to saving the world! Sauron's victory would make the Elves positiion untenable and he is on the verge of conquering both the Dwarves and Gondor. These people HAVE to act or their people are screwed. And each of them is pretty much the chosen champion of their kingdoms.

my.....god, thats a long review.

Right! 90 minutes to go before I start to watch it, so in about five hours I'll come back here and give my opinions...

ah, i can feel the excitement I'm gonna feel right before I see it.

I went and saw the movie yesterday. It was quite good. the only real problem is that the subtitles are so low on the screen that when they speak "elvish," everybody craned their necks to see. Then you couldn't see. That annoyed me, but I could make out what they were saying.

The movie didn't seem too long. I have read "The Hobbit," but I haven't read the trilogy yet. I liked the movie enough that I think I will read them now. Another annoying thing was the close-up battle shots. They irk me, and I really hope they aren't used in AOTC. Other than that, great movie.

Ok, I am all done, and ... wooooooowwwww...

Well, I liked it anyway.

As a big fan of the books, as far as I am concerned the biggest problem with them having changed small bits isn't that they chnaged them per se (because the changes were pretty sensible for a film adaptation), but more that every time one happened I found myself thinking about it and missed a bit... for example:

"I don't remember Aragorn talking to Frodo before he left at the end. Hang on, he DIDN'T talk to him. I wonder why they changed that? Oh bugger, now I've missed what he said..."

Meanwhile, I thought the acting was superb- even from those who some people have criticised- and I have to say that I do not quite understand KJ's criticisms of their motivations. It all seemed clear cut to me, even if I hadn't read the books (I talked to some 'LOTR virgins' about if afterwards. Everyone KNOWS what the Ring is; having been identified as such there is no reason to question the motivations of those who went on the quest. Seemed very clear cut to me.

As for the effects... well...

There were no SW duels, per se, so we are yet to see if they can come up trumps there. Aragorn has a good but brief fight with an Urak-Hai at the end and Gandalf and Saruman have an odd (but strangely engaging) force-push fight, but nothing really on the scale of the TPM sabre duels.

In every other area, though, the film tops Star Wars. The fight with the cave troll in Moria is absolutely amazing, and is something that SW could learn from... unless it already has in AOTC, of course.

The Orcs died a LITTLE too easily to be seen as quite the threats they were meant to be, but the general fighting scenes are fantastic. Personally, I like the fast brief cuts. It made the whole thing seem very chaotic and more intense. And there was a good feeling of 'contact'- rather like Braveheart but with less blood.

The shots of various locales like Rivendell, Lorien and Isengard were higgly impressive with their swoops and so on- just showing how technology has advanced lately. Perhaps they used the SAME swoop trick at Isengard too many times, but it was great anyway.

And I must say, Sean Bean's blaze of glory at the end was most impressive... in fact, Sean Bean came across as quite my favourite, I feel. His was the only hero that was not a 'goody two shoes'; he had mxed motives and a confused mind and was all the better for it.

So, I loved it. As for thw question of how it would strike non-LOTR fans... hmm.

I think it was little things. For example, I assume it is Minas Tirith that Gandalf visits near the start of the film to check about Isildur's ring, but we are never told as much. It is also not immedaitely apparent quite how much time passes between Gandalf leaving the Shire at the start and him coming back. As a book fan, I know it was years, but from the film it could easily have been weeks, and not until you see that Bilbo has finished his book are you given an indication of passed time.

For another example, Galadriel talks readily about the burden of being a 'Ringbearer', but it is never made obvious that she knows this because she HAS one. Unless you remember her being one of the three Elves given rings at the very start, which is unlikely. And if you hadn't read the books you might also ask why Galadriel, if she has a ring, hasn't been corrupted like the Nazguls (the answer, BTW, is simply that the Elves could not be corrupted). She also doesn't quite finish explaining what she meant by calling Frodo her 'doom'- because if Frodo destroys the One Ring, her own ring will stop working and the power of the Golden Wood will be broken. And if Frodo fails, Sauron kills them all anyway. So no matter what happens, Galadriel's time is nearly done. It is meant to be rather tragic, and whoile I wouldn't have objected to it being cut, it seemd to be half-in, half-out, which is odd.

So not 100% clear to a non-book reading audience- but not enough to actually detract from the quality of the film.

In short, better than TPM, and if AOTC is this good then we have FINE times ahead...

i just saw this movie and i thought it was really really good, the only flaw was that their wastn really an ending with any sence of closure to it, it felt very abrupt. but thats forgivable since its a trilogy. but the make up and battle scenes are some of the most amazing ive ever seen. plus the acting is very good for the most part


9-10

It was great, very very good, and KJ here we go with your compareing crap yet again . saving private ryan right.

What the hell are you talking about? This is a review forum and I posted a review. All I said was the plot reminded me of Saving Private Ryan. AND IT DID! Sorry if you don't agree but tough!

lord of the rings is a far better film then saving private ryan and all its cliched glory.

lord of the rings is a great movie i loved it ive seen it three times

Damn, fellas. Better than "Saving Private Ryan". That is a BOLD statement. I think you all built it up too much. I'll let you know it if is any good when I see it tomorrow.

hahhahaahahah private ryan that is a joke of a movie dont compare those two movies to each other they are nothing alike and one is a medicure film (private ryan) and the other a beautifully made film (lord of the rings )

i loved the cinematigraphy of LOTR's . i also liked liz forgot her last name in this movie i thought i wouldnt but she was a good actress

for a pg-13 movie i nearly pissd my pants in a couple scenes i beleive this is the best horror film this year even though its a fantasy movie . thats pretty bad for the horror genre

Saving Private Ryan is a joke of a movie, huh?

saving private ryan was your average war movie.....big battle scene at the beginning....nothing really again till the end....everyone dies except like 3 people...the end.

*ToMacco shakes his head in disbelief* You have no idea what you're talking about.

everything done in saving private ryan had been done by some other war movie in the past. it was like the gladiator of war films.

yes a joke of a movie ,the kind of movie that puzzles any half witted person on why it won so many awards

heh. .. . man. . . you guys have no idea what you're talking about.

Is Citizen Kane a bad movie, too?

How about Schindler's List?

Oh, by the way, The Wizard of Oz must suck, too, huh?

i dont understand what those movies have to do with saving private ryan.

yeah what do tey have to do with private ryan and an answer to your question YES !

citizen kane was good, theres no denying that it was a very very innovative film and one of the most important, but its aged horribly i think. ive never seen schindlers list, but ive been meaning too, and wizard of ozz is great.

I have no idea how this topic got so astray from the Lord of the Rings.

Saving Private Ryan was the first ABSALUTLY REALISTIC depiction of the D-Day invasion. WWII vets had to leave the theator becasue the opening scene was so realistic.

This film concentrated on how important a human life could be. Several men were willing to give their lives to save this one soldier.

Yeah, To is right. Remember, guys, this place is for reviews (and comments on them ot rhe film concerned) ONLY. This sort of thing should be in discussion.

To is not right. Saving Pr. Ryan was not good enough.

Ush:
how was the mine scenes in LOTR done?

Pretty darn well, if you can believe that dwarves would build something so high. Gimli also displays far more ignorance about what happened to Balin's kingdom than he did in the books, but this is for dramatic effect.

like ive said before lets get back to the important subject ,small naked children

I've now seen The Fellowship of the Ring.

I havn't read the books, and I had no idea what the movie was about, accept about a ring.

I really don't think there is much confusion. It does a pretty good job explaining why this ring was so powerful, and how it got into the hands of the main character.

Watching this movie, I felt it tried a little too hard to draw the audience into the entire saga. There is so much talk of other things going on, it sometimes slows the pace of the movie down, which I found frusterating at times.

I did find the danger that the fellowship ran into constantly to be repetative. They ran into too much trouble. And the movie was too long to not have a proper ending.

I'm only going to recommend this movie to certain people. I did like it, but I know many may not. And yet others are going to worshop this movie, and it's going to become a cult movie like Star Wars.

I definatly will see the next two, because the story has drawn me in enough where I want to know what happens. But this is not a movie I'm going to buy when it comes out on DVD and video.

(*** out of four stars)

The mine looked awesome...dark dark and LARGE.. but at the same time they didn't try to hang you up on the scenery...which would have slowed down the story..

Almost every movie fan I know has seen it now and the reaction is still mixed. Apart from women. I don't know any woman who loved it. Any here who did? Dim?


And can someone who's read the book answer this - In the book is it Gandalf who does that trick with the water when it sweeps away the Ringwraiths?

By the way, when I say mixed I don't mean "love it or hate it", I don't know anyone who hated it. But a lot of people didn't think it lived up to the hype that's all.

i still cant beleive ush said lotr was better than tpm. i didnt think it was possible that ANYTHING could be better than tpm...

ok, now that I'm reading your posts here,...
I have to ask something (because A LOT where coming in when the movie started)

You have x rings, the bad guy gives them to elfs, humans,... so they will get attached and they will support him...
Then he makes the One, the powerfull ring, he looses it etc.
how does it came in the possession of that small dude? (not talking about the Hobbit)
Sorry, but when I watch a movie I never remember names ...
I only know Sauroman (that's the Dutch translation) because it's the same guy that will play the baddie in AOTC.
And what was the last name of Frodo? Beggins or Belings? (one is the Dutch translation, witch is VERY strange, why did they changed it???)

Blimey. I created an entire thread in the LOTR area to field questions like these...

Bigsef, why is it so unlikely that a film can be better than TPM? If you think that is my normal view on things then that is seriously skewed.

KJ, no, Gandalf doesn't do the ford trick, though he did add the horses as a cosmetic touch. It was Elrond (or at least his power) who wiped out the Wraiths at the ford in the books; that wasn't all of them but the rest were killed by Glorfindel, who was not in the films.

yerss, Isildur had the Ring, as you know. He was killed in an Orcish ambush as he tries to cross a river. The ring slips from his finger and falls into the river; millenia later it is found by two Hobbits out fishing. The one who finds it wants to keep it, but his rather dodgy companion Smeagol (already starting to be corrupted by the ring's presence- unusual, for a Hobbit) murdered him for it. Smeagol later became Gollum.

The surname is Baggins.

I think I got it... but the Orcs were created (well, mutated I thought it was ...) by who?

Long time ago (many thousands of years), by Sauron.

and HE lost it to Isigard, I hope
(ok, sorry, but I'm terrible in names, and HECK even after 10, yes, TEN minutes the movie started, people were still flocking in and blocking the view!)

No no no. Sauron and Saruman both employ orcs. Orcs are very numerous.

And damn ugly...though that one Half Orc/ Half Goblin they created was very interesting..

I'm going to stop with these questions, only confuses me more and more!!!

I thought that they didn't showed the orcs good enough, you couldn't see them long enough to get scared (like that would scare anyone)

Same here.

i loved the scene where the new orc (uruk) pulls the blade of strider in to his belly and then strider slices his head off.

I absolutely loved the movie! I can say this is easily my next favorite movie trilogy, and my favorite movie series only behind Star Wars. The make-up and setting development was absolutely brilliant! Everyone fit their parts in my honest opinion although I think Frodo (Wood) could have played a more noble part and the whole "I'll save the world" was way to sudden. Honestly, I was hoping for some persuasive actions by Gandalf that actually put Frodo in a "Your the only one, do it or destroy the world" type situation.

However, everything else was just plain genius.

How can you say it's your next favourite movie trilogy when you've only seen one of the movies?

I'll buy the DVD but I can't imagine rushing out to see the next film.

And I agree with you about the Frodo thing.

What about the Godfather's and Indiana Jone's?

AND COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!! EVIL DEAD TRILOGY !!!!!!!!! DAMN IT PEOPLE YOU CANT FORGET ABOUT BRUCE CAMPBELL!!!!!

And the Karate Kid! Or is that four movies?

UBH had you read the books?

Well...call this a hunch KJ but when one reads the novels, and the movies are guaranteed to be along the storyline of the novels, one can assume it will be just as good, maybe a bit less vibrant, but very good indeed. Indiana Jones comes after LOTR, and Godfather after it. Karate Kid is 4 movies.

Karate Kid III and The Next Karate Kid sucked, anyway

didn't they all?
Like Police Acedemy, the first was good and then it dropped

UBH, that's why I asked if you'd read the books.

finally I've seen it, and I'll start off with saying that this is probably the best movie I've ever seen. I'll go a bit more into it , of course.

Book/Movie:
There are some differences from the book in the movie, something is cut out, and some things are added. This I found very well done, the things that were changed made the movie better. things best fitted for a book-only should not be attempted to put on the big screen.

The story:
those who have read the book, will see the magic of their fantasies come to life, and I can hardly think that many will be dissapointed, for Jackson has kept the spirit of the book very well.
I also beleive those who have not read the book will enjoysthis film, it's thrilling and exciting, and the intro to the film cleares up much.

The Actors:
Elijah Wood does his best role ever, almost without flaws. He seems to have mostly one look all the time though (frightened to death).

Ian McKellen is perfect for the role as Gandalf, absolutely perfect. Christopher Lee fits the Saruman role as good as can be done too, frightening at times.

viggo mortensen and sean bean are also spotless. the other hobbits are very good acted, so is legolas (orlando bloom) and gimli (john rhys-davies).

Cate Blanchett is, in my opinion, on of FOTR's best actors. She presents Galadriel just as I had thougt she would be. Extraordinarily fantastic!!!
Liv Tyler is also good, although she hasn't that much time in the movie.

all in all, the roles has been given the perfect actors.

Special-effects:
I couldn't find a single negative point with the special-effects, the only time I saw anything I knew was ComputerGenerated was with the troll in the mines.


Summary:

A superb experience, not let down by anything! Peter Jakcson has truly made the perfect version of LOTR: The Fellowship of the ring, lets just hope the two upcoming movies are just as good!

9,8/10

questions for you, KJ:

what do you really mean, cate blanchett seems 'embarrased'??

and, you say Liv Tyler was terrible, when she indeed was awesome. why was she terrible?

awesome is a big word

yet I find that tyler serves it justice, in the film.

OK, finally saw this movie yesterday and have to say that that I feel this film is a little over-rated in some respects..

The story is indeed a tremedous one, can't fault that really. Indeed I was hooked. Let me just say at the outset that I have NEVER read the trilogy, but I have read The Hobbit, though that was almost 20 years ago.

To make this easier I am going to break it down somewhat.

The Scenary: Can't fault that at all. Bilbo Baggins home was exactly as I had always imagined it to be. I had never given much thought to the rest of the hobbit village, however it worked for me. Throughout the rest of the film the sets and scenes were wonderful.

The Cast: No problems there, a wide cast of familiar and not so familiar faces.

The Effects: On the whole they were good, however I was totally blown back top reality by the appalling scene where the Fellowship are running through the Dwawf Chambers. It was so clearly animated, and badly at that. It reminded me of the disappointment I felt when I watched The Phantom Menace and the Jedi jumped into the Landing bay from the air vents. It seems so strange that once scene can look so bad and yet everything else was done so well.

Makeup: Outstanding.

Overall: A nice film. Enjoyable, but too long.

6/10

I do not remember the problems with the special-effects you point out.

I saw it last night and it was excellent. I loved the books and the only way they could be done properly on film is in that grand scale. I'm gonna take Mrs.MM to see it at the weekend too cus I've been told of a few things I missed, such as Legolas walking on top of the snow rather than wading through it like the rest of the fellowship (hope thats true cus I didn't see it!).

I know which bit you mean RC, it looks odd cus Gandalf is running quite quickly for a man of his age and it does look a little out of place.

I didn't notice that problem, but I'll look after it the next time I'll see it.

the legolas thing is true.

I remember that as well. Like I said in my review, they did some things better than ILM but other things weren't so good.


She just looked uncomfortable. Out of place. I don't know what it was but she was the only one that I thought didn't fit in with that world.

It's hard to describe. It's a bit like Terance Stamp in TPM. I always thought he'd been just brought in to do a few lines then go home and that's how it looked on screen. It was the same with her. She didn't look part of it to me.



Because she just was. Did you really feel convinced with what she was saying? I don't know if it was her of the character but she didn't seem believable to me. When she says "If you want him come and claim him!" was she meant to scare the Ringwraiths? I would be like "yeah, alright, now get out the way".
She was just unconvincing.

I guess she said it to get them after her, and then to trip them when they were in the water.

I personally have never read the LOTR books and Im not likely to, but for at least the scenery and special effects I don't think Ive seen a better movie than this one.
Peter Jackson took a huge risk in making not only one movie but three movies from these very historic books.
And come on of course the movie isn't going to be just like the books, so get over it! And just enjoy it!!!!!

No body else was prepared to take the risk so I believe Peter Jackson should be respected and admired for putting in so much time and effort. ANd to all the actors and other people involved who gave up so much time to come and even live in NZ, to take the risk.

And maybe the people who are so quick to judge the movie, before they take everything into consideration e.g. what parts of the books to do and which parts to leave out and the fact the biggest actors of this world would not have been prepared to take that much time out of there schedules as these actors did.


8/10
And on that note, I hope everyone did notice the awesome scenery which of course comes from this beautiful country of New Zealand, and maybe its encouraged you to want to come and visit oneday........

well I have been there, and did enjoy the scenery in the movie, and did like it

you guys should see BAD TASTE its such a great movie so funny ,it was directed by peter jackson

I can't understand why everyone is raving of Peter Jackson. The direction, in my view, was OK, nothing spectacular really.

well, I think that fact that he pulled it together to make the film what it really should be is an accomplishment that we shouldn't take too lightly.

I agree with RC.

I found this to be a really dull film. Nothing in it really grabbed me and it was boring after a while. And what was going on with the ending? That's just a cheap trick to make people see the next 2.

3 out of 10

I saw the clearly animated bit of the running Gandalf. Still, the design of that scene was pretty cool with orcs running down the columns.
And I agree the direction was not spectacularly outstanding. THe pulling-it-off bit was the main thing. That and the g=fact he had to keep in mind to make it look like everyone would expect it to be. I said this before, it ALL looks like we've grown accustomed to. So no surprises there. Still, it was more exciting than I expected it to be. I saw it 2,5 times now and I wanna see it again.

You saw it 2.5 times?..what happened?..you had to leave the last time?

I don't see what the big deal is about Lord of the Rings. We got a copy of the first one on DVD as a gift, and it's up for grabs...it's in excellent condition. E-mail me at [email protected] if you're interested.

Melkor*